What's new

I'm beginning to become a "DTS GUY". (1 Viewer)

Carlo_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 31, 1997
Messages
13,385
The DD track isn't done by Dolby Labs. The argument therefore is futile.
Also keep in mind that DTS doesn't do their own tracks anymore either. They have pretty much given every major studio and their DVD authoring sections their encoders. Just talked with the guys at the HTF L.A. Meet and their response to accusations that they are monkeying with the masters is "well they aren't done here, so if someone is going through the trouble of altering the mixes, it is not us, and it is not at our request."

And a popular argument is that DTS changes their masters while DD is blameless. I am here to say that can be very *incorrect*.

There are many DD mixes that are altered so that they can be downconverted in-player for Dolby Surround or stereo systems. Think of all the titles that have only 5.1 tracks and no stereo tracks, and chances are those mixes have been altered because they don't trust the in-player decoding chip to do a good job of properly folding a 5.1 mix into a surround or stereo. So that in itself may explain why surrounds are softer on some DD tracks, because they are made softer because if they were loud, and then an in-player chip sends a strong rear surround channel to the main Left or Right speaker it may, and probably will, sound totally inappropriate.

DTS does not encourage, or even have a procedure for, making a 5.1 soundtrack that is "downmix friendly".

PS - I do come from the camp where I have heard some DTS tracks sound better, and some where I can't tell the difference at all, so I am by no means a DTS-fanboy. But after meeting and talking with them and their engineers (twice now in the last two years) I really get the sense that they aren't the ones monkeying with their mixes and that there is something else going on. People are real quick to point the finger at DTS because DD is "the spec" but there are compromises going on in the DD camp (particularly the downmix-safe 5.1 tracks) that could just as easily explain the potential differences.

[Edit] we must have been typing at the same time (took a while to do mine) as I see Jeff Gatie also mentioned the pro-logic optimized (or downmix-safe) method for DD tracks.[/edit]
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
I still think that the basic difference between 20 bit and 16 bit resolution, all things being equal (like identical masters) can account for audible differences between DTS/DD on some systems. No it's not a chevy vs ford thing...some folks really do *hear* a difference. If that difference means closer to the sound of the master tape or source sounds, then it's "better" even if someone else out there doesn't hear the same difference or doesn't prefer it.

I've heard the differences between 20 bit and 16 bit audio in recording studios and IMO DTS sounds more like 20 bit PCM than DD...which sounds more like 16-bit. What'd I'd *love* is to hear Dolby Digital mastered at 20-bit resolution a 448 mbps and see how *that* compares to DTS :D

In my system (which isn't ultra high-end) DTS almost always more analog-like and less "digital" than the DD counter-part.

-dave
 

Carlo_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 31, 1997
Messages
13,385
The other half of the position is that, in situations where the mixes are the same, there's little if any audible difference between the DD and DTS versions.
And I would have no problem with this comment. In fact the Lethal Weapon 1-2 discs I own are indistinguishable between the two tracks.

It's just that I think this downmix-safe, or pro-logic optimized, or whatever track is the real culprit behind why DD may end up sounding inferior. If they abandoned these mixes I could certainly live with the true DD 5.1 tracks. But currently a lot of discs have no separate 2.0 tracks, so you know chances are that the 5.1 mix is "optimized".

Meanwhile we know DTS does not do this. So does this mean the DTS CODEC is better? Absolutely not. But the fact that the DTS soundtrack is not optimized (ironic use of the term for those of us who are 5.1 capable) makes that soundtrack better. Is the master different than the DD track?

Yes.

But not because DTS altered it, as is the commonplace assertion here, but because perhaps the DD track is altered.

And in that case I'll take the DTS track every time.
 

Nick_Scott

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 9, 2001
Messages
321
But not because DTS altered it, as is the commonplace assertion here, but because perhaps the DD track is altered.
I would agree. Some studios also apply "dynamic compression" to the dolby mix as well.. To make sure it sounds good on cheap speakers. Dolby also encourages mixers to not put "important" information in the LFE, which would be lost on a stereo system.

Personally, I can hear a HUGE difference on some DTS tracks. They are all dreamworks DVDs (which sorta partially own DTS).
So then we hear claims of Speilburg "cooking" the DTS track.
But then we hear claims of Lucas "cooking" the THX Dolby tracks.....

Whatever. I think we can all agree that Dolby uses a better codec, but the DVD spec can handle a higher DTS bitrate.
Furthermore, the DD track tends to be "modified" more to accomodate cheaper home theaters.

Personally, I'd like to see MLP tracks on HD-DVD, but I've heard that there simply won't be the room. Perhaps not even for DTS, or maxbit DD... hmmm

Nick
 

Walt O

Agent
Joined
Apr 5, 2000
Messages
25
I guess it depends on how you define "better." If better is smaller, then Dolby wins. If better is more like the original, then DTS wins. Personally, I want DSD (yeah, the SACD format) on any new hi def dvd format. Why? Because it sounds REAL!!! As far as the Warner releases, I think it's interesting that Warner went to a a 448 bit rate on the Dolby tracks only on the releases that also featured a dts track. Once they dumped DTS, they also lowered their Dolby tracks back down to 384. Maybe they have fixed this in recent releases...anyone?

Whether or not you personally believe one format or another is "better," one thing's for sure: DTS is keeping Dolby on their toes, which can only be good for us.

Walt
 

Ricky Hustle

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 29, 2000
Messages
976
Oh, c'mon guys, not this argument (debate?) again!? :)

As far as what kind of "guy" I am, I fancy myself an ass guy (female that is ;) )
 

David Judah

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 11, 1999
Messages
1,479
In addition to what David & Carlo have mentioned, it has been suggested that when a particular filter is utilized to prevent aliasing in Dolby's encoder/decoder combo, it causes anomalies between the Main channels and LFE(acoustical & electrical cancellation).

I don't know if this is true, since DTS was the one making the claim(they said they measured this effect)or if Dolby fixed this problem in subsequent versions of their encoder & decoder, but it would be interesting to hear someone from Dolby respond to the validity of this claim, since it could have a profound effect on realized bass levels.

DJ
 

Adam Barratt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 16, 1998
Messages
2,345
Real Name
Adam
In a 16-bit recording, each 6 db you don't use drops the effective resolution of the signal by a bit. So a 16-bit recording that never peaks above -6db is recorded with only "15 bits of effective resolution". Well I have *many* DD DVDs that leave more than 12db unused! That's bascially a 13-15 bit recording!

DTS as a rule utilizies 20 bit PCM masters and provides full 20 bit resolution (maintaines). Most DD soundtracks are encoded at 16-bit res (though DD can do 20 from what I understand). If for no other reason, DTS might sound "better" than DD in many cases just because 20 bits sounds smoother and more "natural" than 16 bit audio.
As the inherent resolution of both formats is greater than 16-bits, I don't really see how this would be an issue in your example. And as the real-world resolution of normal DTS is lower than 20-bit (probably around 18-bit at best), the same could also be said of DTS were a 20-bit master being used. I think you'll find that there are virtually no DTS soundtracks that are encoded with peak levels dead on 0dBFS in any case.

As DTS don't generally encode themselves anymore, the claim that DTS masters are 20-bit "as a rule" is now incorrect. Generally speaking they will use a master with the same resolution as that used by the Dolby track.

Both DTS and Dolby Digital are able to use 24-bit masters.

'Enhancing' the soundtrack for downmixing is also quite rare. Fox, for example, don't do this for any of their Dolby tracks. There is no fundamental need to make any changes whatsoever to permit good downmixing. Metadata flags control how a soundtrack is downmixed by the decoder, eliminating the need to adjust centre channel or surround channel levels from those of the master. Dynamic range and playback level can also be controlled by these flags making alteration of the master when encoding unnecessary. If changes are taking place when encoding rather than decoding it is because of inexperience or error on the encoding engineer's part or some other factor unrelated to the format.

There are so many variable and possible exceptions involved that I find blanket statements such as "DTS is better on DVD" or "Dolby Digital is better on DVD" impossible to make. At the very least most people can accept it isn't black and white.

Adam
 

chris_clem

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 9, 2003
Messages
345
IMO, DTS tracks are a "safer" way to listen DVD's since the inclusion of an "unecessary" DTS track (i.e. not reuired by DVD spec)would mean that the studio took the time, effort and money to have a "higher-quality" track.
In my experience DD tracks can range from crap to outstanding depending on the mix but DTS would almost certainly range from above average to outstanding. Would I be able to discern a top-notch mix from both? Probably not. But given a choice between the two I think it almost always "safer" to choose the DTS track especially if you're just watching the DVD once :)

Try this: Given a blind buy/rental DVD with zero preconcieved notions which track would you choose if both DTS and DD was available and you just want to watch the film once? (DTS, right?)
;)
 

Jason Hennigan

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 16, 1999
Messages
192
Real Name
Jason Hennigan
Has DTS mastered any DVDs themselves?

I know that they did LDs, but I am not aware of them doing any DVDs. Which I think is too bad. I'd love to hear DTS mastered DVDs.

As for DTS tracks getting better masters, what's wrong with that? If that's what happens, and the DTS sounds better because of it, I don't see why people get in a fuss about it. I don't know about you guys, but I'm all for better sound.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
As for DTS tracks getting better masters, what's wrong with that?
Nothing, but it's less often the case than people think, especially now that the mastering is done by studios or independent production outfits. As Adam points out, many of the perceived differences between DD and DTS have more to do with psychology than with technical specifications.

M.
 

David Judah

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 11, 1999
Messages
1,479
As Adam points out, many of the perceived differences between DD and DTS have more to do with psychology than with technical specifications.
There are, of course, many things that could influence the quality of soundtracks, but there are enough differences between the codecs that I wouldn't entirely rule them out as a factor.

DJ
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
there are enough differences between the codecs that I wouldn't entirely rule them out as a factor
I don't, and I try to be careful not to say otherwise. But after many years of trying, I still can't hear the "night and day" difference that some people seem to experience, so I don't rule out psychology either.

M.
 

Chris Will

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
1,933
Location
Montgomery, AL
Real Name
Chris WIlliams
All I know is on a DVD by DVD case most of the time I prefer the DTS track. Some of these debates makes it sound like DD or DTS sound bad. Both formats sound great (for the most part) but if a DVD has a DTS track I'll choose it. Why? B/c I'm a DTS fan.
 

Mitch Stevens

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 27, 2002
Messages
581
OK. I finally listened to the "Rock" DD version so I can actually comment on what I KNOW instead of what I have HEARD. Well to my ears, both tracks are very similar except the DD version on my setup has the bass a little bit bloated and it kinda seems out of place, where as the DTS track has better mid-range bass and less of the deeper bass. The DTS track sounds punchier (is that even a word?) and better in my opinion.
 

Sebastien S

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
371
I just got a Home Theatre System several months ago, so I'm somewhat new to all this but...


Didn't I read somewhere that the "Official" people in charge of reviewing and comparing had done so and said that it was close but that they found DD to be superior?

I have a 5.1 system and my reciever supports both DD and DTS. However, each time I listen to a movie in DTS, I have to turn the volume up a tad higher than when I listen to it in DD...

I'm sorry but, so far I prefer DD (no offence to anyone here).
 

CaptDS9E

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
2,169
Real Name
Joey
A few weeks ago i actually did a small test of DD and DTS. I switched between both tracks for the same scene in around 5 movies with both versions on the dvd. 4 out of the 5 the DTS sounded better. The other one they both sounded pretty much the same. I tried another 5 yesterday as i saw this thread and 3 out of the 5 sounded better on DTS. 1 they sounded the same and 1 the DD actually sounded better. It was a older dts release.

I have a bunch of superbits and i compared then when i got them to there original DD versions. 4 out of the 5 the dts track blew away the DD. 1 sounded exactly the same.

So as you see it does vary. This was only a small sample as there are more then 15 dvd release with DTS

capt
 

Richard Paul

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 11, 2002
Messages
246
I think that part of the problem is that people are forgetting that most DTS tracks on DVD are at 754 Kbps while only a few are at 1.5 Mbps. I am certain that DTS at 1.5 Mbps is better than Dolby Digital at 448 Kbps, with all other factors equal. I think the more relevant question is whether DTS at 754 Kbps is better than Dolby Digital at 448 Kbps?
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
I switched between both tracks for the same scene in around 5 movies with both versions on the dvd.
Did you change the volume levels when you switched? Most DTS tracks will play back 4db louder than most DD tracks, because of a little-understood feature of DD called "dialog normalization". If you don't adjust for that 4db difference, then of course the DTS will sound "better".

M.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,821
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top